Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Christ did not grow in grace or in holiness

And
Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men. (Luke
2:52, Douay-Rheims)

This passage from the Gospel
according to St. Luke is often interpreted (in a manner smacking of heresy) to
indicate that there was a substantial growth of holiness and grace in our
Savior. However, upon reflection, it will become abundantly clear that such
could not have been the case. Jesus could not and did not grow in holiness, but
was from the first moment of his conception perfectly and totally holy.

This is especially relevant as
we celebrated the feast of the Baptism of the Lord last Sunday not as a moment
of increase in grace in our Lord, but as an Epiphany or Manifestation of the
fundamental fullness of grace and holiness which he had enjoyed from the moment
of his conception.

Christ
is totally and perfectly holy

That our Savior was totally and
perfectly holy is a direct conclusion from the union of humanity and divinity
in his one divine person. Precisely because Jesus of Nazareth is the very Son
of the Father, he must be (ever and always) totally and perfectly holy.

Thus, St. John relates:

We saw
his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of
grace and truth (John 1:14).

And again:

For he
whom God has sent speaks the words of God: for God does not give the Spirit by
measure. The Father loves the Son: and he has given all things into his hand. (John
3:34-35)

Now, if the Savior was full of grace and truth and if this
grace was not given by measure but
rather the Father has given all things
into his hand, that is, he has given all graces to his human nature, from
this we must conclude that the good Jesus was totally perfected in all holiness
and grace.

Furthermore, because his
humanity is the cause of grace in us, it is necessary that he be wholly
perfected in grace as man – for he can only give that which he already possesses,
hence his holiness is entirely greater than all the holiness of all the saints
combined. Indeed, his holiness must be perfect in order to be the cause of
perfection in men.

Holiness:
Freedom from sin

Holiness has two
characteristics: Freedom from sin and union with God. In regards to the first,
we must insist that our Savior was (from the first moment of his conception)
wholly and entirely free from all sin and from every stain of sin and even from
every imperfection or disorder of the will and intellect which comes from sin.

Jesus was perfectly and
completely sinless. This is a dogma of the Church.

Therefore, it is clear that,
under this aspect, the holiness of Christ our Savior was full and complete from
the moment he came into the world – and this holiness could not possibly have
increased throughout his life. He was already wholly separated from sin, even
from the first moment of his existence as a man.

Holiness:
Union with God

In another respect, holiness is
union with God. But here it is clear that the holiness of Christ was indeed
perfect and total from the moment of his conception – because there is no
greater union of man to God than that which was effect in Christ through the
union of human nature to the divine nature in his single divine person.

The holiness of our Savior is
founded upon this union – which is an uncreated grace, the grace of the
hypostatic union. In this sense, our Lord’s holiness was innate, substantial,
uncreated and inamissible. This holiness clearly could not have increased
throughout his life – because the union of humanity and divinity was not
augmented in Christ as he grew with age but was perfect from the first.

The
fullness of created graces

Now, some may attempt to hold
that our Savior did not have the fullness of all created graces from his
conception – but that these were given to him gradually. Let us consider what
this would mean.

St. John Vianney could “read
souls” – this was a grace infused by the Holy Spirit at particular moments for
the benefit of souls. Shall we deny this grace in a most eminent degree to our
Savior, even when he was in the womb? Would we dare to claim that the power of
the Spirit at work in the saintly Cure of Ars was greater than that at work in
the infant Jesus? Should even St. John Vianney be elevated to a higher holiness
than the Divine Infant? Even in just one grace?

No! By heaven, no! It is a
blasphemy.

Our Savior must always have had
every grace which would ever be given to any of the saints. He must have had
these graces in an eminent degree. He must have had even more graces than
these.

This is why the Venerable Pius
XII states:

“[Christ] is gifted
with those supernatural powers that accompany the hypostatic union, since the Holy
Spirit dwells in him with a fullness of grace than which no greater can be
imagined.” (Mystici
Corporis, 1943 [here])

If the Child in the womb of
Mary is indeed our Savior, then he must not stand in need of any increase in
grace or in holiness. If he is the Savior, then he cannot himself need to be
saved or made holy in any respect – but must already be fully and completely
holy in himself.

Again, Pius XII states:

“At the first moment of the Incarnation the Son of the
Eternal Father adorned with the fullness of the Holy Spirit the human nature
which was substantially united to him, that it might be a fitting instrument of
the Divinity in the sanguinary work of Redemption.”

But, if the Child lacked any
gift or grace in the first moment of his Incarnation, then this holiness would
not be greater than can be imagined. Furthermore, if his holiness and spiritual
adornment with graces is the result not of his natural growth, but of the
hypostatic union, then it is clear that this fullness and totally must have
been complete from the moment of the union and could not have increased
throughout his life.

The
Common Doctor and Blessed John Paul II

St. Thomas, the Angel of Aquin,
teaches:

“Now the end of grace is the union of the rational creature
with God. But there can neither be nor be thought a greater union of the
rational creature with God than that which is in the Person. And hence the
grace of Christ reached the highest measure of grace. Hence it is clear that
the grace of Christ cannot be increased on the part of grace. But neither can
it be increased on the part of the subject, since Christ as man was a true and
full comprehensor from the first instant of His conception. Hence there could
have been no increase of grace in Him, as there could be none in the rest of
the blessed, whose grace could not increase, seeing that they have reached
their last end.” (ST III, q.7,
a.12 [here])

And the Great John Paul II
further states:

“At the instant in which the Eternal Word becomes man, a
unique fullness of human holiness is accomplished in the assumed nature, a
fullness which goes beyond that of any other saint, not only of the old but
also of the new covenant.” (Audience
of 6 June 1990 [here])

“The Holy Spirit instilled the fullness of grace in Christ,
for the personal union of the human nature with the Word of God, for the
extreme nobility of his soul and for his sanctifying and salvific mission for
the whole human race.” (Audience
of 27 June 1990 [here])

Finally, we do well to note
that the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (553) condemned and anathematized
Theodore of Mopsuestia (a favorite of Hans Urs von Balthasar), in part, for
holding that our Savior increased in holiness and grace during his life on
earth.

And Jesus advanced in grace (Luke 2:52)

And so, we return to our Scriptural
text, which precisely does not say that our Lord grew in substantial holiness
or grace – Luke 2:52.

And
Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace with God and men.
(Douay-Rheims)

And
Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man. (RSV)

Now, there is no indication of
a growth in grace, obviously. However, we do take occasion to point out that
Catholics have often used this verse to speak of the growth in the “manifestation”
of the grace which was always fully present in Christ’s soul.

Thomas tells us:

“Anyone may increase in wisdom and grace in two ways. First
inasmuch as the very habits of wisdom and grace are increased; and in this way
Christ did not increase. Secondly, as regards the effects, i.e. inasmuch as
they do wiser and greater works; and in this way Christ increased in wisdom and
grace even as in age, since in the course of time He did more perfect works, to
prove Himself true man, both in the things of God, and in the things of man.” (ST III, q.7, a.12, ad 3 [here])

And Pope John Paul II:

“Luke the evangelist, perhaps echoing private conversations
with Mary, tells us that, as the Son of Man, Jesus grew in wisdom, age and favor before God and man (Lk 2:52;
cf. Lk 2:40). In an analogous way one can also speak of ‘growth’ in holiness in
the sense of an ever more complete manifestation and fulfillment of that
fundamental fullness of holiness with which Jesus came into the world. The
moment in which the consecration of the Son in the Holy Spirit was made known
in a special way, at the level of mission, was at the start of the messianic
activity of Jesus of Nazareth: The Spirit
of the Lord is upon me: because he has anointed me; he has sent me (Lk
4:18).” (Audience
of 6 June 1990 [here])

And again:

“The grace which, again according to Luke, was ‘upon’ Jesus
and in which he ‘grew,’ seems to indicate the mysterious presence and action of
the Holy Spirit in which, according to the Baptist's proclamation reported by
the four Gospels, Jesus would be baptized (cf. Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; Jn
1:33).” (Audience
of 27 June 1990 [here])

Thus, it is clear that the
Blessed Pontiff (who was ever a disciple of the Angelic Thomas) maintained that
this “growth” in holiness was only an increase in the manifestation of the
presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the humanity of Jesus. In this way,
he is in perfect accord with the Angel of the Schools.

Finally, consider the classic
Catholic commentary of Fr. Haydock:

“Not that he was wiser at any future period of his life,
than he was at the moment of his conception, but this is said, because he chose
to manifest increasing signs of wisdom as he increased in years. --- In the
same manner also he increased in grace, by displaying, as he advanced in age,
the gifts of grace with which he was endowed; and by this excited men to the
praise of God, from the consideration of favours God had bestowed upon him; and
thus he conduced to the honour of God, and the salvation of men. (St. Gregory)
--- The sun, always equally brilliant in itself, is said to increase in
splendour, till it has reached its meridian brilliancy.” [here]

Catholics do not and have never
believed that Jesus increased in grace, but we have always maintained that he
was perfected in all grace from the first moment of his conception.

14
comments:

I want to ask you a question even if it is an off topic because i'm in serious need.

I was at confession. After i said my sins the priest asked me if i read the Gospels and i said yes, even if i don't do it on regular basis(but i have read them before and on the very same day). Now, in the moment when i said "yes" i said "yes" because i didn't want to say "no", and i taught of myself as not reading the Gospels on a regular basis. Later it occured to me that i in fact read the Gospels that same day and i asked myself:"Was this a lie? Or i just didn't remember in that given moment that i have read the Gospels? Does this fact that i read them make that "yes" not a lie? ". I don't even know why i said "yes" if i taught of my reading as "no". Maybe out of shame...Maybe i have a problem with lying.

I understand that Jesus would increase in wisdom and age and grace with men (who are ignorant), as those things were revealed to them, but how can this increase in knowledge of these attributes be applied to God (all knowing)?

@Marko,I would say that I don't think so ... it doesn't sound like it was a direct lie (though perhaps not the whole truth, neither was it really a lie) ... further, you were not hiding a mortal sin from the priest ... therefore, I do not think that this would make the confession sacrilegious ... so, as far as I can tell, you should be at peace.

I loved the article. Thank you, Father. I am always distressed when our Pastor, during his homilies, makes statements like, "Mary got angry with Jesus for staying in the Temple for three days without telling her", or "Jesus was a typical Boy: talking back to His mother, whining, etc." He mocks me when I try to correct his incorrect perceptions of Jesus, Mary and Joseph or the Angels and Saints. I have reached a point where I don't trust him, so I go to Confession to another Church; and I don't respect him. I do, however, still pray for him.

Scripture does not say that we saw Jesus' and grace become more manifested. It really says that he advanced in wisdom and grace before God as well as men. You're doing violence to the text of Sacred Scripture.

But, Christ was perfectly and completely sinless. Grace and holiness are not defined by an absence of sin (THAT smacks of the Protestant ideas about imputed justification), but rather by life in Christ - which grows, even when sin is absent to begin with. The Theotokos was holier than the unfallen Eve; indeed, she is holier than the angels ("more honorable than the cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim...", in the words of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). The solution to this theological problem is a return to St. Gregory of Nyssa's concept of epektasis - continual growth in theosis, in holiness, in divine grace for all eternity, which will be experienced by all the saints. (C. S. Lewis described this adventure quite well at the end of "The Last Battle". Getting to Heaven is not a static state that ends - eternity according to St. Boethius is fullness of life, the capturing of all time in an eternal present, not the reduction of time to a static moment.)

"Anyone may increase in wisdom and grace in two ways. First inasmuch as the very habits of wisdom and grace are increased; and in this way Christ did not increase. Secondly, as regards the effects, i.e. inasmuch as they do wiser and greater works; and in this way Christ increased in wisdom and grace even as in age, since in the course of time He did more perfect works, to prove Himself true man, both in the things of God, and in the things of man."

There is a third way for Christ to increase in grace, and that is to increase (through His sacred humanity) in life and unity with God. Grace cannot be reduced to habits and works; it is deeper than that - the life of God in the soul. It is theosis, divinization, not just a good habit.

Seraphim,In typical modern eastern fashion, you wrote a lot and said nothing.

It is absurd to say that Christ's humanity was progressively more united to the divinity and more "divinized" through his life (excepting, of course, the fact that the glory of his soul overflowed to the resurrection of his body).

For the record, every Eastern Father would condemn as a heresy the idea that Jesus increased in grace and holiness through his life.

I have read that some Antiochene Fathers speak sounding this way sometimes. I think what should be remembered is that both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox - who preach theosis very strongly - strongly reject these semi-Nestorian notions where the soul of Christ is united progressively with the Word. In fact, in my experience, the Eastern theologians downplay the humanity of Christ more so than the Catholic Church. That doesn't make them heretical - nor the Assyrian Church of the East which does tend to emphasize a distinction between the human soul and Word in Jesus - but just different tendencies within the bounds of orthodox understanding. I must confess I am a bit unclear of where the Church stands on the Oriental concept of miaphysitism (which has been confused for Eutychianism, or the heresy monophysitism). Perhaps Father might have some input.

The Oriental Orthodox reject, in fact, dyophysitism entirely and favor what they call miaphysitism. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Nestorian-Assyrian Antiochene tendencies that you describe are not universally Eastern in any sense, and those who speak most strongly about theosis would be the most opposed to Christ's own divinization (as opposed to our own).

I love the Eastern Churches very much, but we have to remember there are, in fact, at least three different, sometimes conflicting theologies in the East whether Chalcedonian Eastern, Assyrian/"Nestorian," and non-Chalcedonian Oriental/Coptic/Ethiopian.

Thanks for the interesting links to JP2's audiences. When I read that of June 27th 1990 I saw the Pope said"However, the fullness of grace in Jesus was in proportion to his age; there was always fullness, but a fullness which increased as he grew in age. "

Doesn't that contradict your argument that he didn't increase in grace?Paul, Ireland.